With a white, triangular handkerchief tucked into his breast pocket, former U.S. Senator Gary Hart sips coffee in Washington's Mayflower Hotel on a recent Thursday morning. He also receives calls on a cell phone that plays a Mozart cantata; points out Clifford May in the lobby ("a mouthpiece for the Republican party -- probably here meeting Chalabi"); and talks about political gossip, George Tenet and, most importantly, his new book, The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the Twenty-First Century.
What is the message of your book?
From the end of the Cold War until the terrorist attacks of 2001, America did not have a grand strategy. We did not take the time to define our purpose in our world. To rectify that, I propose that we strive toward three goals: achieve security, expand opportunity to ourselves and others, and promote liberal democracy. We have abundant power to achieve these aims. We have the largest economy, and we are a political and military power. In addition, America has a fourth power, which are its principles, including, of course, free press, freedom of assembly, human right, and rule of law. When we support a government that doesn't believe in those things, we are weakening ourselves. We did that during the Cold War. We should not do that in the war on terrorism.
Even Jimmy Carter, who believed strongly in human rights, aligned himself with unsavory characters.
It's hard. We could become more European and say: "The world is a messy place. We understand. We'll have to get ourselves messy. We make no grand claims for being superior." But America does claim to be superior. And, like an individual, if you violate your own principles to achieve an objective, you should question the objective. It's probably wrong.
You're critical of an ad hoc approach to foreign policy. But why can't you just deal with a crisis in, say, Somalia as it comes up?
Well, that was basically the Clinton approach. Madeleine Albright -- or Sandy Berger -- said, "We don't have a strategy; we deal with issues as they arise." The problem is the world surprises you. Having this kind of approach is like an individual who says: "I don't know what my purpose is in life. I'm going to get up in the morning and see what happens."
Isn't that the way most people live?
I don't think so. They have jobs, families, mortgages. They have plans. As a nation, you have to plan your future. Otherwise, the world is going to do bad things to you.
Bush has a plan.
He didn't until 9-11. And he doesn't have a grand strategy. He has a strategy, which is the war on terrorism. You should pay really close attention to the portion of my book that distinguishes between "strategy" and "grand strategy." "Strategy" is a military term. "Grand strategy" encompasses all the powers of a nation -- economic, diplomatic, everything. Bush's strategy focuses on what he called "an axis of evil," but it's illogical. He invaded one of the three parts of the axis. He has not invaded the other two and doesn't plan to. And, finally, it's reactive. You asked why we shouldn't take things as they come. Because you make mistakes, and it costs people their lives -- like it has in Iraq. So you not only have to have a strategy. You have to have the right one.
How do you know if you have the right one?
You don't. It's like saying, "How do you know if you have the right plan for your life?" You only know by living your life. And you test it. [He leans over and taps the cover of The Fourth Power]. Here's our strategy. I've laid it out. George W. Bush might read this (though I doubt he will) and say, "This is nonsense." My response is: "Mr. President, write your own. Then we'll apply the test of reason. Does your strategy make sense historically? Does it make sense in terms of your principles?" The plan in my book isn't an abstraction. It's a blueprint that shows a nation of 350 million people where it ought to be going.
You're an ambitious writer.
Not necessarily. Who's going to quarrel with achieving security, expanding opportunity, and promoting liberal democracy? I know critics will say, "Can you be more precise?" I don't think so. An individual can say, "Here are my purposes in life: To serve my community and help my country." Those are general purposes; that doesn't mean they're not valid.
You once talked about grappling with the intellectual challenge to make liberalism relevant. What did you mean?
Rhetoriticians of the right like Rush Limbaugh have made liberalism a bad word. They use it with disdain. But in the classic sense it means open-mindedness. Indeed, the word "liberal" in Europe means the opposite of what it means here. It means a government that leaves its citizens alone. In this country, though, it means recapturing a sense of social justice. We need to restore the original meaning of the word. Then people will say, "Oh, yeah, I see -- I guess I'm liberal."
Tell me about Washington. Is there anything you miss about this town?
I was elected when I was 36 years old, and it was a privilege to serve in the United States Senate. To a degree, I miss that. But I was not planning for a political career. In a way, I wanted to make a contribution and move on. I don't miss the money, the media, the political gossip.
I thought that was the fun part.
[Laughs]. No. It was too vicious.
How do you feel about the media?
How much time do we have? I wish the press would do its job: The First Amendment is not about celebrity and show business and entertainment. It's about informing the American people.
As co-chair of a national security commission in early 2001, you spoke about an imminent terrorist attack. What happened when you tried to report to Condi Rice and others in the Bush administration?
[Rice] was a supporter of mine when I ran for Senate in '80 and for president in '84, so I've known her a long time. We briefed her on the phone when our report came out in January. We had a personal briefing with Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. We tried to see the president, and he refused. We tried to see the vice president. He refused. After our commission was disbanded, I tried to see Dr. Rice as a concerned American. I had no official authority or title. It took months. While I was waiting, I kept on giving speeches, including one to transportation officials in Canada. A Montreal newspaper, the Gazette, ran a story after my talk: "Terror Risk Real: Hart: Thousands in U.S. Will Die." I flew down to Washington to see Dr. Rice, and my hair was on fire (to use Richard Clarke's phrase). That was September 6, 2001. When I saw the second plane fly into the tower on television on Sept. 11, I thought, "I wish I had done more to try to warn the country." That was the frustration I felt. Later, I got angry.
What's going to happen next?
We're going to be attacked again. Sooner rather than later.
Well, I guess we know that --
But we're not acting as if we know that.
I mean, we need you to say it --
We need The American Prospect to say it. We need The New York Times to say it. We need The Washington Post to say it. We need the president to say it. Instead, the president's saying, "We're attacking them in Iraq so they won't attack us here." But we're recruiting for al-Qaeda with the war in Iraq.
So when will be attacked?
That's the president's stance: "I'm not going to do anything till you tell me when, where, and how it will happen." That's crazy. Look, if you put yourself in the mind of the terrorist, you say: "I've proved the vulnerability of New York and Washington. Now let me go to the heartland. And let me attack them in the easiest possible way, which is to spread a deadly virus." So you can expect a smallpox attack in Denver, Cleveland, and Dallas. But terrorism is a small subset of the problem, which is Americans adrift. We don't know where we're going, and therefore we don't know how to get there.
While co-chair of the security commission, you talked about homeland security.
We invented the term. It hadn't been used anywhere, I don't think, until we did.
How are things coming along?
If you go over to the Department of Homeland Security, they'll say, "Well, we just increased spending by X amount." That's the Washington approach. "Well, the Defense Department has $400 billion so we must be safe." You need to ask, "Does the Denver fire department have the equipment it needs?" The answer: No. "Does the Denver police department have catastrophic drills?" The answer: No. "Is the Denver public safety director plugged into the communications system of the FBI?" The answer: No. So that's how we're doing. But the press isn't asking these questions. Neither is Congress. It drives me mad.
You're helping John Kerry with his campaign. Some people say he's keeping too low a profile.
He's not running the dramatic, make-the-news-every-day, cutting-edge, attack-attack-attack campaign that a lot of Democrats would like him to. But you have to put campaigns in historical perspective. Kerry wrapped up the nomination earlier than almost anyone in my lifetime. In my case, Walter Mondale and I continued to compete through the primaries in June, then went to the convention in July, when Mondale was nominated. John Kerry has eight months to fill.
Tenet's just resigned -- tell me what you think.
If you want to make a million dollars, you should write the book on the unknown background of the Iraq War. It's a blockbuster. I think Tenet's in the middle of it. Chalabi's a player. Richard Perle, Wolfowitz. All these guys. I think we went to war for reasons that were not told to the American people. And it's all going to come out. There has been a conspiracy, a plot. It's a cesspool. Tenet knows a lot of stuff he's not telling. Why he did remain in his job after Sept. 11? Because of the White House. They couldn't fire him -- he knew too much.
But he just got fired, didn't he?
He quit. Huge difference. I think he quit, and he knows a lot of stuff. I have an instinct about these things.
Tara McKelvey is a senior editor at The American Prospect.
